The Downside of Labeling "High Potentials"

A colleague reached out recently to ask whether I’ve implemented a formal development program for High Potentials. I have. Several times, in fact. And while I absolutely believe in identifying and developing future leaders, I’ve become increasingly cautious about one specific move we make far too casually:

Labeling someone as a “High Potential.”

I'm not talking about telling people they have potential or investing in their growth. And I certainly don't mean to avoid giving them stretch assignments, exposure, or feedback.

I'm talking about the "HiPo" label itself.

Perhaps the root of my hesitation goes back to an organization I worked at many years ago, when a particularly ambitious employee confidently told a roomful of peers that she was a HiPo. This was during an already awkward "tell us an interesting fact about yourself" icebreaker. We were supposed to choose an animal that described the fact. She chose a hippo. Eyes rolled.

As the kids would say...so cringe.

Why the HiPo Label Creates More Risk Than Most Leaders Realize

When we bluntly tell someone, “You’re a High Potential,” we often think we’re being motivating or transparent - good intentions, and all. What we’re actually doing, whether we intend to or not, is creating a cloud of unstated assumptions:

• That a promotion is likely
• That readiness is implied
• That trajectory is linear
• That opportunity will arrive...with time alone

Research and practice both show that HiPo designations can distort behavior. Some people infer certainty and ease up on their development efforts; others who are not labeled infer exclusion and disengage. Over the years, multiple large‑scale talent studies (particularly Gartner/CEB research and Korn Ferry) have warned that HiPo programs can damage trust and retention when expectations aren’t carefully managed.

Hard truth: Potential is not a promise, and labels have a way of turning possibility into perceived entitlement.

Where This Connects Directly to Succession in the FLOW

In a recent post, I wrote about Successor Readiness in the FLOW - focusing on how readiness develops through the right experiences, timing, and movement, not declarations. This is where HiPo labeling quietly compromises succession systems. Labels freeze people conceptually. FLOW depends on motion. Succession works best when we:

• Assess readiness directionally, not categorically,
• Focus on experiences, not status, and
• Recalibrate continuously as people grow

Calling someone a HiPo shortcuts that discipline.

Three Better Practices Than the HiPo Label

If your goal is credible succession, not just comforting signals, these practices hold up far better over time.

1) Identify Signals of Potential, Not Statu

Instead of giving the label, “You’re a High Potential.”

Try:

“We’re seeing strong signals of potential based on how you handle complexity, learn from feedback, and operate without authority.”

This keeps the conversation grounded in observable behaviors, not identity. It also reinforces that potential is something demonstrated and developed—aligned perfectly with FLOW’s emphasis on movement and learning through experience.

2) Separate Potential From Readiness

One of the most common succession failures is collapsing these two ideas.

Potential = capacity to grow into greater complexity over time

Readiness = the ability to perform effectively in a specific role now or soon

FLOW requires this distinction. When we blur it with labels, we lose calibration, and succession conversations become either overly optimistic or overly political. Strong succession systems are explicit about where someone is in motion, not where we hope they’ll land.

3) Anchor Development in Experiences That Advance FLOW

Instead of defaulting HiPos into privileged, structured programs, anchor development in experience pathways that enable:

• enterprise problem‑solving
• cross‑functional leadership
• ambiguous decision-making
• accountability without authority

Decades of leadership development research - including what underpins the 70:20:10 concept I often refer to - show that experience and relationships drive most meaningful growth. Formal learning supports the journey, but it doesn’t replace movement. FLOW is created when experiences are sequenced intentionally, not when labels are assigned early.

The Lens That Changes Everything

If you're navigating this "to HiPo or not to HiPo" situation at your organization, consider your people, culture, and succession needs and ask:

“Does applying this label help us make better readiness decisions, or does it complicate our efforts?”

If it’s the latter, it’s not succession discipline. It’s added risk.

The real work of succession is making readiness visible without false certainty.

Because future leaders don’t need promises.

They need clarity, challenge, and motion.